Top
Best
New

Posted by JumpCrisscross 12 hours ago

Nancy Grace Roman Space Telescope(science.nasa.gov)
https://nextspaceflight.com/launches/details/6983/

https://www.npr.org/2026/08/28/nx-s1-5905370/nasa-nancy-grac...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nancy_Grace_Roman

161 points | 68 comments
delichon 4 hours ago|
The data, up to 1.4TB/day raw compressed, is planned to be fully open, every observation is public as soon as it is processed with no embargo. You can just download it and start looking for Rama or Oumuamua or plan your exoplanetary real estate empire or make a really big sandbox game. I at least want somebody to make me a cool screen saver.

You could easily be the first person to see a galaxy.

I wonder how much space exploration could be financed by auctioning off naming rights.

marze 11 hours ago||
For some tasks, surveys in particular, field of view is critical. You would need many Hubble telescopes to do what Roman can do mapping everything out there.

"What really makes Roman stand out is that it is designed for wide-field imaging. The cameras on telescopes can often only detect objects in a very small patch of sky. If we use the size that the full moon appears in the sky as our guide, Hubble’s field of view is often smaller than that —meaning each picture it takes is of a patch of sky smaller than the full moon. Webb’s instruments often are even smaller than Hubble’s. Each picture taken by Roman, however, will be larger than the full moon, allowing it to survey more of the sky much faster than Hubble or Webb."

https://science.psu.edu/news/ask-expert-will-roman-help-reve...

SoftTalker 11 hours ago|
And yet the narrow-field Hubble produced this famous image

https://science.nasa.gov/mission/hubble/science/universe-unc...

Those are galaxies. In a field of view "about 1/13th the diameter of the full Moon."

drfloyd51 11 hours ago||
Your point being?

Hubble in certain circumstances can see narrow and far. If you express this as a cone, you can extrapolate a volume.

It might be very useful to have something that can search wide and maybe not as far; nearer Earth dangers perhaps. Express that as a wider cone and extrapolate volume.

mrkpdl 10 hours ago||
I think their point is that it’s amazing.
Reason077 11 hours ago||
Roman is scheduled to launch tomorrow (Aug 30) on a Falcon Heavy rocket:

https://www.space.com/news/live/nancy-grace-roman-telescope-...

willis936 11 hours ago||
Part of the story is everyone being shocked at being under budget and ahead of schedule. I don't know everything, but I think this is reasonably attributable to the fact that this is a retrofit of an obsolete spy satellite. The leftovers of the security sector will be the most advanced scientific space surveyor. I have to wonder what things would look like with different priorities.
ChocolateGod 10 hours ago||
IIRC the mirror is from a spy satellite, but the chassis and electronics are all NASA.
mturmon 5 hours ago|||
This is true. The telescope is much more than just the primary mirror.

Roman has two science instruments, a wide-field imager (“WFI”) and a coronagraph (“CGI”) and they were both built by NASA for this purpose (optics, electronics, detectors, deformable mirrors).

The WFI optics includes filters and a prism and grism for spectroscopy, and of course the very large CCD arrays.

The coronagraph is a rather special tech demo and allows imaging of exoplanets (Jupiter-like) while blocking the light of the host star. (https://science.nasa.gov/mission/roman-space-telescope/coron...). It’s a precursor to HWO which is mentioned down-thread.

willis936 4 hours ago|||
From what I can gather it is much more than just the primary mirror but the entire platform sans classified parts, which were replaced with NASA's optics and sensors.
dylan604 8 hours ago|||
Isn't that also how Hubble started? I'd assume there's a lot of lessons learned to avoid costly research on conversion of the platform.
mandevil 3 hours ago|||
Hubble was the result of an open competition between a variety of companies and technologies. But the winners were the people who built the KH-11 spy satellite, who could offer the cheapest and best proved options because of their experience with KEENAN.

Both KH-11 and Hubble had similar sized mirrors, but that wasn't because of design reuse, it was because that was the biggest primary mirror you could fit in the Space Shuttle cargo bay (1). In actual fact no KH-11 went into space on a Shuttle, but the plan up until the Challenger disaster had been for the STS to carry all US satellites into space, including the KH-11, which was designed around that cargo bay.

1: The space shuttle cargo bay was sized the way it was for NRO payloads, but it seems clear that the USAF wasn't thinking about KEEENAN when they requested that size- a design like that would be better if it was wider and didn't need to be nearly as long. My suspicion is, when NASA asked them what size they wanted for the bay, they took the last design they had- the just cancelled KH-10 Manned Orbiting Laboratory, and used that.

_djo_ 7 hours ago|||
No, Hubble didn't reuse any components from spy satellites. However, the chosen mirror diameter was decided by the size of the mirrors being produced for the Keyhole programme, as it meant NASA would be able to reuse Perkin-Elmer's existing fabrication facility.
Mawr 8 hours ago|||
> I have to wonder what things would look like with different priorities.

Things aren't as simple as more money = more good.

Rapid progress requires adversity, the kind you'll find when nations compete for military power, for example.

teamonkey 1 hour ago||
Adversity forces a scientific budget and for jobs to be created in related research areas. For some reason we don’t find it important to maintain that level of funding when there’s no adversity.
dfxm12 10 hours ago|||
People shouldn't be shocked that employees of the US government can deliver things ahead of schedule and under budget.

The problems are that anyone gave Musk/doge the time of day and that we're too used to the president giving no bid contacts to incompetent donors.

ChocolateGod 9 hours ago|||
Musks company provides not only the most cost effective but also the most reliable access to space that is currently unparalleled by any other company.

We should thank the government for spending tax money efficiently.

You should blame the legacy aerospace companies whom purposely inflate contracts and take forever to do things for there being a lack of competition, not Musk.

Morromist 7 hours ago||
As I see it Musk is lobbying the goverment to give him money to do useless stuff & expensive in space like land on the moon again - basically redirecting funds away from useful stuff like the James Webb Telescope for publicity stunts. Not any different from the legacy aerospace companies, who also lobbied like crazy, except on a bigger, dumber scale.
ChocolateGod 7 hours ago|||
Starship is mostly funded by Starlink.

Yes, Musk is a crappy character, but that's not a reason to make things up. This isn't Reddit.

Morromist 6 hours ago||
Starship isn't actually operational. I'll let you look at their plans for it and you can tell me if they involve doing things the goverment would pay for like landing on the moon and building space stations or not.
dotancohen 6 hours ago|||
Then you see it wrong. Plans for returning humans to the surface of the moon have been being developed for longer than you've known Musk's name.

The Artemis program was developed out of the Constellation program, which was initiated sometime around 2005 or 6.

Morromist 6 hours ago||
How is landing on the moon not a publicity stunt? What can the humans do that massively cheaper robots couldn't - besides take some awesome photos and bring back some more moon rocks?

Of course there have long been plans to go back to the moon because its a cool fun thing to do and whoever happens to be president would likely be well remembered for taking credit for it. That doesn't give it credibility as a useful endeavor.

ChocolateGod 6 hours ago|||
> How is landing on the moon not a publicity stunt? What can the humans do that massively cheaper robots couldn't - besides take some awesome photos and bring back some more moon rocks?

Humans have intuition and curiosity, they can spot something quickly in the distance that looks peculiar, go to it and quickly inspect it.

ralfd 5 hours ago|||
Even if it is a publicity stunt it was not lobbied by Elon Musk. Also Jeff Bezos Blue Origin got more money for the Artemis program.
Morromist 5 hours ago||
I see. And how do you you know that elon, a notably close supporter of the president didn't have anything to do with the Artemis program? I notice that Chinese electric vehicles are essentially banned in the US, but probably that had nothing to do with Elon as well right? And what does it matter if Blue Origin also made money on the Artemis program?
andsoitis 3 hours ago||
No need to be so combative.
jryle70 10 hours ago|||
> the president giving no bid contacts to incompetent donors

Are you talking about SLS?

Oh maybe you'd say that is "Senate Launch System", it's complicated, job program, 50 states sharing, and so on?

lisp2240 2 hours ago||
Maybe other space companies would be under budget and on time if they weren't run by Nazi drug addicts. I'm not typing a name but everyone reading this knows who I am a talking about.
nightsd01 2 hours ago||
I will never understand why NASA doesn't build at least two copies of expensive space telescopes like this. One single launch failure and boom (literally), the entire project is a failure?

It wouldn't double the cost assuming they do it with even a modicum of efficiency and intelligence. And hey - assuming that the launch goes smoothly, you can get double the benefit

pwarner 2 hours ago|
why build one when you can build two for twice the price?
loufe 1 hour ago||
I always thought this was a ridiculous part of the movie but it truly stuck with me more anything.
dylan604 8 hours ago||
I'm really excited about observations we're about to see over the next decade. Bringing NGR online and combining with Rubin, Hubble, and JWST will give us imagery and hopefully new discoveries and understanding.

I had the fortune of letting some of my neighbors through a telescope for the first time for the partial lunar eclipse. I say fortune, because it is amazing to be a part of someone having that experience that never disappoints. Even if they've seen images from NASA/ESA, putting your eyeball directly to the 'scope is much more meaningful.

stuart78 10 hours ago||
This video linked from the site is quite good at adding a sense of scale to the undertaking. I also love that Roman will be supported by Hubble and Webb.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDwemQH2zDU

danilor 10 hours ago|
I'm wondering what are the considerations for having multiple detectors instead of a single large one! Does anybody have an idea? is it just because it's easier?
Starman_Jones 7 hours ago|
The primary detector is the wide-field instrument, which, believe it or not, takes pictures with a wide field of view. The secondary detector is the coronagraph instrument, which uses a bunch of funky filters to block out the light from the star to see the halo around it.

Edit: These are the detectors, which are the cameras. There is only one mirror assembly (with two mirrors) that focuses light into these instruments.

More comments...